Boy, I know it's been a while since I've been here but since starting my own biz it's been 18 hour days. Listen, I have a question. At NAB I saw what I thought was the answer to my problems. At the JVC booth there was a Red Rock M2 display that had this converter that not only allowed me to use prime lenses but gave me great depth of field as well. When I talked to the RedRock people they told me that's the beauty of the Red Rock...great DOF. So I get one and put it on and NOTHING. I mean my primes fit but the depth of field is just like it always was...long and crystal clear. Has anyone else had this problem? I was promised that the M2 wuold give me film-like DOF but it doesn't. Anyone?

DOF is also affected by which prime you're using, distance from subject and your aperature settings. If your fstop is set around F4, you're using a "normal" lens (not super wide) you should have a pretty shallow DOF. If you're using a very wide prime and small aperature (F8 or 16 for example) you'll still have deep focus.

Give us some more particulars on your set up.

First, Warren, hey. Back on the board after those hellish weeks and pony-shows. And Joyce, my Joyce says Hi. Now, to your issue. We used the M2 with a standard 50mm lens and experienced the same thing. In point of fact, I spoke with a number of people I met at the JVC booth and everyone is experiencing the same problem which is why "24" is having issues with the 1/3" cameras; DOF. The M2 and the PS Teknik both allow the use of primes but, until I saw the Red Rock demo at NAB, I thought that neither addressed the DOF issue. When I saw the Red Rock though, the DOF was great. I could rack focus from the table to the bookcase and the fern, all within a few inches to a couple of feet of each other and that was with a stock, older 50mm Nikon (I took notes). Excited, I came back to LA, told alot of people about how a $1000 box beat a $10,000 box and borrowed a Red Rock and 50MM Nikon to prove my point. How embarassed was I? I couldn't replicate the DOF I saw the Red Rock produce either. So, in short, I don't know what to tell you except that I'm having the same issues. So, Warren, given she was using a 50 like I did, what's the answer. You were at NAB and I think saw the RedRock demo. What do you think?

Have you guys thought about going directly to the source -- and asking this question on Redrock's message board? After all they are the best people to help you, since they built that thing. The link is:

http://redrockmicro.com/forum/index.php

Chris- Thanks. I didn't know about that board. Your work makes so many of our lives easier. Thanks.
Jonathan

Ditto. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll check over there. Now it's back to the dungeon for me!

I suspect it's just like the HD100 stock lens--if you create the right conditions, you can get a shallow DOF with it. It's just lots harder. The whole point of the Red Rock is to simulate the base conditions of a 35mm lens but it won't automatically be shallow. Without having my hands on one, I suspect it will take some knowledge and practice to get the look you want but I've seen that you can get it. With a 50mm lens I think you'd need to be fairly close to the subject with the lens wide open. Nate and Tim would know better what conditions are needed.

It may sound obvious, but check to make sure you've got an open iris on the prime lens you're shooting through. Set the iris on the prime for the DOF you want, then use the iris on the "master" lens (presumably the HD100 stock you've attached the M2 to) to set exposure.

Joyce, what lens are you using with the M2?

Jonathan, over in a post in another thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=486912&postcount=5) you mention that Taylor Wigton came over and showed you "a great solution" to this problem. For the benefit of everybody else here who might encounter the same trouble, would you mind sharing with us what that solution is?

The M2 and the PS Teknik both allow the use of primes but, until I saw the Red Rock demo at NAB, I thought that neither addressed the DOF issue.


I haven't worked with the Redrock, but as an early adopter of the Mini 35, I can tell you that it absolutely addresses the DOF issue. In fact it creates the exact dof and fov of a 35mm format camera.

I was surprised to read from Taylor and from another friend here, both with experience with the M2 and the Mini35 that the M2 was actually preferable in image quality and light transmission to the considerably more expensive P&S, so much so that I decided to setup an HD100 with a M2 for our dramatic work. In fact I'm just about to order a setup today.

So, without the M2 expereince but a ton of Mini35 experience all I can suggest is operator error or not enough experience in working with the sysytem. I'm assuming that, aside from the upright image that the P&S system provides, that the prinicple is essentially the same, and that is to project the image from a traditional 35mm lens onto a screen that "rear" lens then focuses on and sends to the 1/3" CCDs, thereby providing it with all of the characteristics of the front 35mm lens.

As has been suggested, proper iris settings (on both lenses) and proper distance to subject and background/foreground are the essential ingredients, and they should be exactly the same as shooting with any 35mm format camera - still or motion.

Jonathan and Joyce, if you really can't duplicate what you saw at NAB, drop me an email and I'll be glad to give you a quick primer on getting the shallow dof that you should absolutely get from your system...we can get on the phone for a bit if it would help.

Jonathan, over in a post in another thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=486912&postcount=5) you mention that Taylor Wigton came over and showed you "a great solution" to this problem. For the benefit of everybody else here who might encounter the same trouble, would you mind sharing with us what that solution is?
Of course, Chris. I'm grabbing a quick early lunch here in the coach and checking e-mails while the crew is setting up so let me do that this evening when I get home. I took some notes on the things he was doing to pass along to the camera guys here and without those, I'd probably screw the methodology up.
Jonathan

The thing is, as you are filming an image projected on a ground glass by a 35mm lens, there's no way you wouldn't get the exact same DOF from that lens as you would if it was mounted on a 35mm camera. As simple as that. The problem is not the M2.

The thing is, as you are filming an image projected on a ground glass by a 35mm lens, there's no way you wouldn't get the exact same DOF from that lens as you would if it was mounted on a 35mm camera. As simple as that. The problem is not the M2.

The problem is either (1) they are shooting with a wide prime lens like a 35mm or a 28, or (2) Aperture on the prime lens is shut way down the f stop scale to F 16 or F11. They need to shoot with the lens set at wide or near wide open aperature ( F 1.2 to F 2.8), in order to have a maximum shallow depth of field.

The problem is either (1) they are shooting with a wide prime lens like a 35mm or a 28, or (2) Aperture on the prime lens is shut way down the f stop scale to F 16 or F11. They need to shoot with the lens set at wide or near wide open aperature ( F 1.2 to F 2.8), in order to have a maximum shallow depth of field.

Either way, they would get the same DOF if they were using a film camera and doing the same things they are doing now with the M2. That was my point. But you are right. It's either focal length, aperture or both.

Going back to Joyce's original post; what lenses have you used with the M2 Joyce? This is restating some basic DOF points, but what's basic to one film maker might be informative to another, so here goes.

There are four primary factors that influence DOF. They are:
Focal length of the lens.
Aperture of the lens.
Relationship of camera to subject.
Relationship of foreground and background to subject.

You don't need to apply any of these any differently to the Mini 35 setup...there is a direct relationship.

As for the M2, because I haven't used it yet and because it relies on the existing zoom lnes as it's relay, I can't speak to the optimal setting for that lens in order to emulate the Mini 35, but I'm quite sure that when properly setup, it too has a direct relationship to the above criteria.

So once the HD100 lens is set correctly for the M2, the only things you need to understand are how the four above factors interact to affect DOF.

Some of the really nice CU and tight CU film work is often done with an 75mm, 85mm, or 105mm prime lenses. I also like to shoot those with 135mm. An 85mm is the kind of lens that you can open up from say 12 feet away and get a medium CU with nice separation from the background.

If you really want to blur that background, you might half that distance using the same f/stop, t/stop (I'm being really general for brevity here).
But by moving that 85mm closer to the subject and maintaining the aperture setting tht gave you a reasonably soft DOF you will now see a substantially more blurred background. That's the camera to subject relationship. By keeping the 85mm in it's original place and opening up the iris a stop or two more you will "approximate" the same effect.

Now, given the same distance of subject to background, say you want to shoot a wider FOV but still have a nice shallow DOF. Then a nice fast 50mm (1.2 is my favorite) and a closer positioning to the subject will get you there.

We and lots of other people have shot all day and gotten totally different FOV and DOF by moving around the location with nothing but a 35mm and 50mm lens - it's all about those four factors and their relationships to each other.

If you're outdoors or doing a large interior and you've got a great deal of distance between subject and background, then you can stop down the lens more or use a wider angle and open it up more. depending on what the shot dictates...that's the beauty of 35mm and apparently it's even better with the M2 because you don't suffer the approimately 2 stop loss of light that make Mini 35 that much more of a tricky tool.

No matter how you look at it, the concept of shallow DOF is to give separation to your subject and to create a three dimensional look that has previously only been associated with "film" making.
By practicing and gaining an understanding of how focal length, aperture, and camera/subject/background all interact, you'll be able to get the M2 to emulate the characteristics of a 35mm sensor rather than the 1/3" CCDs we're working with.

Hope this helps.

Nice post. They will have a pretty good idea of how to get what they want now.



We and lots of other people have shot all day and gotten totally different FOV and DOF by moving around the location with nothing but a 35mm and 50mm lens - it's all about those four factors and their relationships to each other.


But depending how you do it, people would look different from shot to shot. Works, but not ideal.

Nice post. They will have a pretty good idea of how to get what they want now.




But depending how you do it, people would look different from shot to shot. Works, but not ideal.

Thanks Michael and yes it works but it ain't ideal. Our prime kit consists of 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, 105mm, and 135mm (and a big honkin 180mm that's a beautiful piece of glass). I'll tell you, the day that someone develops a way to get true DOF with a lens as fast as the HD100's with that kind of range...

First off, I have to say, you guys completely rock the house. I got involved in this group because of Jonathan who I met at HD Expo last year with George Dibie, another great guy and he told me about both dvxuser and you guys here. Since then he's become a real mentor and my go-to-guy with his like 20 years in the business and eagerness to take time to help me and everyone else but you guys, well, I juast don't know how to tell you how much you mean to us three girls who are shooting their first real paying gig. First, Paolo, I wound up shooting with a 50 dialed out to 2.8 which is about what Jim recommended and Jonathan hit me with this afternoon. Our paths crossed at Willow Springs Race Track today where my unit and his were shooting (Weird but that place is a So. Cal. hotspot for filming) Anyway, the tape read 10 feet from lens to subject and you all were right. I got great separation and could 3-point rack from subject to driver in the car 5 feet back and finally to the background track where the cars were spinning laps. So the trick was, open it up and lock it down. But that was the bad part. The thing rocks when you get it dialed in but the slightest movement and the focus goes whacko and I need to reset everything. I mean I accidentally kicked the sticks and when I looked through the viewfinder, it was out of line and this is weird because I saw the demo at NAB and people were whackin' the bejesus out of that cam and the Redrock held its focus ground. So, to make a long story short, I'm getting the hang of it, especially with Jim's big time post (Thanks and LD hugs to you) but what's the story with it being tempermental. In my new and humble opinion, they should make a unit that is totally sealed, racks on the camera body and when you put on your favorite lens, your ready to roll. Maybe that's too much to ask right now but at least i made it through the day and learned siomething. Again, you guys rock and a big time hugs and thanks from three girls who are, thanks to you, getting a clue!

Yeah, right now, it seems like the industry is moving to larger chips to get the depth of "film" depth of field thing, but since the 35mm adapters seem to be so popular, it would be interesting to see someone come up with a camera dedicated to the the 35mm adapter concept. Can you imagine a unit with the same type of screen, and fixed and specifically designed lens to shoot the screen. I suppose that is being done on some level with the interchangeable Canon cams...

Again, you guys rock and a big time hugs and thanks from three girls who are, thanks to you, getting a clue!


Right back at ya girls. When you live on top of a mountain in Vermont just talking with people in civilization (let alone CA) is a gas. If I'm not on location or in the studio I go days without talking to anyone but dogs and horses.

Not that I'm complaining.

First, Paolo, I wound up shooting with a 50 dialed out to 2.8 which is about what Jim recommended and Jonathan hit me with this afternoon.

Sounds good. I have a 50mm Canon prime, f1.8, that is actually very nice and shows an excellent DOF, I mean, I get that nice blurry BG easily. I was just wondering.

Seems you are on the right path, good luck.

To Jim- Vermont rocks. In fact jonathan and I had common ground there too. I'm tellin ya, this biz is a really, really small world! He always stays at the Inn at Essex and I, being of substantially lower means than him, stayed there once and fell in love with the place. Ice sculptures at the entry, uilding set out in the country, Culinary Institute w/ food to die for. One day I'm gonna be at that level.

As to Jim, horses and dogs are my thing too. They love you unconditionally, don't ask for anyting except your love and care and, well, they just beat guys all to heck, present comopany excluded.

As to Chris, I understand that this Taylor Wigton is close to solving the whole lock-down, one size fits all thing. He hired one of jonathans attorneys for patent for which he's footing the bill because he says he's figured a way to way to do what i wondered about in the last post, seal a unit and lock everything down. I'm telling you, having to reset the focus once I got it dialed in was a real pain. But we're out there again tomorrow to try Jims' and the rest of your ideas and i'm getting there early to try the different apperatures and distances you guys mentioned today in your posts. God bless you guys one and all and one of these days we all have to get to gether so I and my compadres can give you big hugs for your help, Again, no other words suffice. YOU ROCK!

Horses and dogs? My favorite discussions... but that would be veering too far off topic here!

;-)

So, to make a long story short, I'm getting the hang of it, especially with Jim's big time post (Thanks and LD hugs to you) but what's the story with it being tempermental.

Well - part of that is what $1k gets you vs. $10,000.

This stuff is sorta experimental really. The M2 isn't a great toy for people that aren't real good at "jiggering". I'm working on a M2 to Hd-100 setup that should be more "sealed" when it's set up so it can bumped etc. and still be OK. I'll post pics once I get it worked out.

I'm curious to see if Taylor has a new relay lens. As it stands, if you're using the Fujinon and you bump the zoom or macro ring then you're out of focus. So until that lens is out of the loop we need to keep using a little TLC. Or gaff tape. :-)

Well the short story is I don't know what he did because he won't or rather can't tell me because of trade secrets with him and Redrock over the M2. Apparently he's been working with Redrock and has come up with this way of stabilizing everything in addition to creating the DOF I need. When he set it up, he used an Achromat lens, I know that much but I didn't watch how he was doing it but it worked perfectly and now I had a great setup that unfortunately I can't duplicate successfully maintaining both the DOF and stability. He's a great guy and offered to set it up anytime for me but can't tell me how it's done beacuse of his allegiance to Redrock and his sense of fairness and honor. What a rare find! I really respect that guy but I can't carry him around in my back pocket so I'm kind of in a quandry. What I saw at NAB can be done but Taylor or Redrock I guess has to do it because I can set up the lenses but I don't know how he secured everything so no matter how we jossle it or bump it, it doesn't lose focus like it didn't lose focus at NAB. Sorry guys and girls but I'm stuck too.

Well, if that's really true, and I hope something is being misunderstood, it's not fair from Redrockmicro to it's customers. If the M2 indeed has a "secret setting" or whatever it may be, to make it work better and if so, they clearly would set it that way for any reviews, specially that Taylor did do a review on the M2 even putting it above the Mini35, but nobody is allowed to know how to set it up to perform that way, well I must say they are misleading the public. I think that may even be illegal. People will read Taylor’s (or any review) and will buy the M2 thinking they will be able to set it up the same way Taylor did but they won’t because for some weird reason it’s a top secret move. If you ask me, that’s quite ridiculous. I hope I’m misunderstanding something here, otherwise, I really can’t understand why they wouldn’t be allowed to tell how they do it. Doesn’t make any sense.

I don't know how he secured everything so no matter how we jossle it or bump it, it doesn't lose focus like it didn't lose focus at NAB. Sorry guys and girls but I'm stuck too.

Was the stock Fujinon lens still on the camera or was another lens being used in its place?

If you ask me, that’s quite ridiculous. I hope I’m misunderstanding something here, otherwise, I really can’t understand why they wouldn’t be allowed to tell how they do it. Doesn’t make any sense.

Considering how little information we have I'd say it's likely there's some level of misunderstanding. If Taylor has a new invention he's working on then he might need a little privacy for a while.

As to the unit giving shallow DOF... as long as you're not using a wide angle lens it will. I've never actually heard this particular complaint anywhere. A 50MM at F8 focused at 6 feet is much more shallow than anything the stock Fujinon lens can do at that distance with the same Field of View. Usually people are shooting the Micro35 at F4 or less on their SLR lens. Other than putting a wide angle lens on there it's pretty tough to get deep DOF.

As far as the ability to knock the unit out of focus, that's been possible with the M2 on every camera since the beginning. Bump the zoom and you're out of focus. That's not going to change for any adapter/camera combo that doesn't have a custom made relay lens. You can use a 55mm male to male macro coupler to try to link the M2 to the Fujinon so they are locked together. That's part of what I'm working on now, but I won't have one here for a few days.

Also - a general FYI for anyone reading along:

Depth of Field is the Zone of Sharpness.

"Greater DOF" is DEEP and means more in focus front to back
"Less DOF" is SHALLOW and mean less in focus front to back.

"BETTER or GOOD DOF" is like saying "better or good field of view". It doesn't clarify much.

Here's a little more on the subject.
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/950/depth-of-field.html
"The zone of acceptable sharpness is referred to as the depth of field. Thus, increasing the depth of field increases the sharpness of an image. We can use smaller apertures for increasing the depth of field."

I don't think anyone is misleading anyone and, quite frankly, everyone who knows me knows that I won't stand for misdirection or misleading statem,ents. My tiff with IDX has been proof of that for months so I'm a pretty good judge of character. I don't know the people at Redrock but from what I know about Taylor, he's a stand-up guy and would never hide or mislead anyone. I think it may be that Redrock realized that there was no inherent stability in the system and has been working on that to make better an already good product. Taylor may have discovered how to make it stable and was helping me but protecting the work he and Redrock are working on right now to provide the public later. I have a friend at Grass Valley who's been waiting on a delivery of his M2 from Redrock for almost 2-months now for testing with the new Infinity and has heard nothing so perhaps they're implementing the stability on new models and will make it available to all of us when it's perfected so what they provide us will match what they showed at NAB. I can't imagine that they would show a product at NAB, makes sales off that product based on what we saw at NAB and then not have the product deliver what we saw. Again, I simply don't know. What I do know is the the Redrock that I used I couldn't get to work and the Board here was an immense help in allowing me to understand the complexities of the system. Taylor was good enough to put his stuff aside to help me get the set up for the shots I absolutely had to have that day and his system worked flawlessly. Whether or not Taylor's system of making the Redrock stable is something he figured out for himslef or he and Redrock are working on to provide to us, I don't know and there's no mention of it on there board. I just thought it odd that, after seeing what I saw at NAB with people smacking a camera around back and forth and putting it through a torture test of sorts and never once having it be out of focus, I was having the difficulty I was getting it to work. I mean I'm not the sharpest pencil in the rack but I'm not that dumb either. I just figured you could put it on, adjust it once, lock it in place and shoot hapilly the rest of the day with normal camera movement and jostling. Unless it's me, that's simply not so. Anyway, the camera I was using had either the stock Fujinion or the 13 on it. It wasn't the 20, I know that and I think it was the stock lens because I pulled it straight out of one of the cases and we keep or other lenses separate from the stock configuration that fits in the cases.

As far as the ability to knock the unit out of focus, that's been possible with the M2 on every camera since the beginning. Bump the zoom and you're out of focus. That's not going to change for any adapter/camera combo that doesn't have a custom made relay lens. You can use a 55mm male to male macro coupler to try to link the M2 to the Fujinon so they are locked together. That's part of what I'm working on now, but I won't have one here for a few days.
"
Actually, Joel, I agree with you wholeheartedly except for the above part. I was at the JVC booth for hours with JVC people there, as you know we bought 6 of their cameras and are buying another 6 of the 250s when they are availbale, and saw person after person grab and claw at the camera with the Redrock device on it., These pelople beat the heck out of that demo camera moving it back and forth, side to side, uop and down without so much as a hint of anyone needing to do adjustments between people looking through the viewfinder. That went on for 4-days so somone did something to that particular Redrock device to assure that the focus never went out of alignment because I couldn'tr even breathe on the one I was using without the focus going whacky.

I was at the JVC booth for hours ...These pelople beat the heck out of that demo camera

Hmm... are there any pictures of that unit anywhere? I'll email Brian and ask him if there was anything special about it.

In my case I'd say the whole rig is pretty sensitive because several different things cause issues. The 35mm lens usually has pretty shallow DOF so if the subject moves a foot you're out of focus. Welcome to film. :-) If the Fujinon to the Micro35 orientation is changed by the camera rotating just a little on the tripod plate then you're all or partially out of focus.

If the zoom setting moves a millimeter then you're out of focus. If the Macro setting moves a millimeter you're out of focus. If the focus moves that could do it too... but it needs to move more.

I think Gaff tapes solves the latter issues. I'm hoping the 55mm Macro Coupler solves the Fujinon to M2 connection issue. There's a guy who's done it with an HVX, so it's possible. At that point everything's pretty much locked down and you should be able to "go for it".

I'm hoping the 55mm Macro Coupler solves the Fujinon to M2 connection issue. There's a guy who's done it with an HVX, so it's possible. At that point everything's pretty much locked down and you should be able to "go for it".

Can you elaborate a little here about what you're trying to do?

Can you elaborate a little here about what you're trying to do?

I think the frustration being expressed here has to do with the adapter bolting onto the front of the cameras regular lens, and becoming a problem when you have to continually focus the camera lens to be sure it is getting sharpest image of the ground glass. I am gathering that the slight bumping will throw it out of focus, and require refocusing constantly. They want to be able to lock down that focus-- that's my impression, any way.

Probably the best thing to do would be to turn the HD100 focus ring until it hits some extreme then focus on the ground glass using the macro ring. Then even if you do bump the focus, you just turn it back to the extreme instead of having to tweak it.

Can you elaborate a little here about what you're trying to do?

Physically connect the Micro35 to the Fujinon so they are aligned perfectly and stay that way even if the unit is knocked around.

Brian mentioned the NAB unit wasn't anything out of the ordinary. His process is to set focus to infinity, macro to maximum and then use the zoom to focus on the ground glass.

I tried to call Taylor but no luck so I left a message for him to call me. But I swear, when he did what ever he did, we spun the camera around and it stayed perfectly in focus. OK, not spun it around in a circle but cetrtainly 180 degrees from side to side multiple times because we were looking through the viewfinder as he was explaining things and using the monitor as we focused on different objects in the shot and the focus held perfectly. I didn't move the whole camera or tripod obviously and thus change the distance from the subject to the lens plane because that would change the focus but whatever he did to secure the unit, he didn't use gafftape or anything but whatever the system had bolted to it. To be exact, we had a coral fan at about 2 feet away on a coffee table, an actor at 6' 6" away on a sofa and the backyard garden setting behind that. We ran the shot from the focus on the fan for 5 seconds, shifted focus to the actor for about 30 seconds of dialogue and then conmpleted the shot with the focus on the yard. 7 takes later and abunch of lostling of set and camera and whatnot, we never had to adjust for anything getting out of alignment so whatever Taylor did, it sounds like he ought to bottle it and sell it or at least rent it out. We won't use the system all that much because most of what we do is sports but we do have 4 cameras in the color commentary booth so were hoping to equip those but not if we can't count on holding focus with the slightest jar.

OK, not spun it around in a circle but cetrtainly 180 degrees from side to side multiple times because we were looking through the viewfinder as he was explaining things and using the monitor as we focused on different objects in the shot and the focus held perfectly.

Oh - I've always been able to do that. You should be able to use it normally on a tripod, dolly, steadicam or whatever!

All I'm saying is if someone gives the unit a really good knock or touches the zoom setting you're probably going to be out of focus. Not sure what your exact problem was - but what Taylor got for you is my normal experience.

Well then it must be me and my camera guys because we couldn't get it to hold focus at all when we reassembled the unit. Perhaps we just need something that doesn't exist yet but I was sure, after seeing the Redrock display, that we would be able to buy a half dozen of them like the JVCs we bought when we started making the change to HD through HDV in January, send them out with the cameras and crew, set them up in the field just like any other lens, lock them down and go with the shot but we can't so I don't know, I must be doing something wrong. Like I said, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but if I can't figure it out, especially with your guy's help which I hope you know how much I truly appreciate it, alot of other people are going to be scratching their heads also because, again, I was left with the impression at the booth at NAB, just follow the instructions and you're good to go.

Thanks again so much Joel, Stephen, Chris, Mike and whomever I've forgotten. I really do appreciate it.
Joanthan

I was left with the impression at the booth at NAB, just follow the instructions and you're good to go.

I think Brian from Redrock is in LA. He could probably help you personally. Next time you're in Scottsdale let me know. If you bring your unit I could look at it or show you how I've got mine set up.

That sounds great. I have a location shoot there 2 weeks from tomorrow so I'll get with you before I come out. We'll be there for 3 days.
Jonathan

So I still have this question: would the Zoerk adaptor and a 20mm Nikon AIS lens potentially be an ideal solution with th M2?
Again, having only worked with the Mini 35, I'm still a bit unclear of how you set up the M2.
I realize that you put the adaptor on the front of the Fuji and the 35mm glass on the front of that, but am I right that you put a 72mm lens in between there as well?

but am I right that you put a 72mm lens in between there as well?


35mm<--Micro35<--achromat<--Fujinon(in macro mode)<--HD-100

You can replace the fujinon with a 20mm + Zoerk.

I just did it right now to test this out again. It does work but my 20mm is 2.8, so that's a couple stops slower. I also noticed the field of view is much tighter than the Fujinon at 20mm. I could have sworn the focal length was about the same between the lenses, but maybe I was wrong.

So it now looks to me that you might need a wider lens as a relay and you'd want it FAST.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it worth bothering with? If someone hands me a 17mm 1.2 that's small I'd slap in on there and test it! ;-)

A dedicated custom relay might be worth it though.

Joel, Jim and all, let me ask you a question. If you were going for this device and money was no object...within of course reason...what would you do or build with what components, I mean if you had the choice of any lens and system set up, SD Achromat or HD for the shot I described. What I'm trying to figure is if Taylor has specific pieces that the rest of us don't have in addition to the Redrock box or if he's just figured out to manipulate everything for repetitive takes. I thought I was done with this but the issues really got me scratching my head all the way home from the studio.
Jonathan

What I'm trying to figure is if Taylor has specific pieces that the rest of us don't have in addition to the Redrock box or if he's just figured out to manipulate everything for repetitive takes.


I know I'm MUCH better at using it and setting it up faster now that I've taken the whole thing apart and put it back together 10 times. If Taylor was using YOUR unit then I'd say he's just got the hang of it better.

If it was his unit then your lens or the unit itself may have an issue. I've adjusted darn near everything there is to adjust on there in order to finally get mine performing without vignetting or distortion. I don't really think I've ever an issue like you describe.

Unless your ground glass is loose. That could cause what you're talking about.

As far as what I'd buy - I'd buy RED! But after that I think this unit along with the Primes described in this thread are a great way to go. 35mm F1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 Nikons (maybe 1.2 on the 50mm) and you can cover a lot of ground. I haven't tried a zoom yet.

I'm still waiting to hear from Taylor. You know, I've been thionking. "24" is a closed and I mean really CLOSED set. All that time on the set of "24" with Taylor and Rodney Charters testing cameras, they may be on to something. And, with that set-up he did for me, I'm thinking he has a personal relationship with Jack Bauer and the CTU Unit has given him access to anti-terrorist intel how the Russians have perfected the Redrock unit and Jack somehow smuggled it back guided by Chloe who's the real computer mastermind behind the Unit. Of course President Logan probably knows about the Redrock device as well now and, thinking it's Russian made and, he's working with the mysterious man behind the scenes, you know, the weird Doctor from ER, who wants to keep it a secret so he's dispatched the Special Forces to capture Taylor and Rodney Charters as well who's now in Toronto shooting another show and trhat's why Taylor hasn't signed on to the Board here all day. He's on a Chinese tanker headed back to Asia with Jack Bauer and we won't have a working M2 until he and Jack somehow escape. But that's not until next season which debuts in January 2007!!!!!!!!!!

OK, now I know I've been in this business too long. I'm writing real-world technology into Fox's scripts. Save me!!!

That's not nearly as scary as the fact that Jack Bauer has personally killed 130 people in only 5 days.

That doesn't make any sense. The adapter has to work just like any other. the depth of field is created by the lens in front of it, just like it would on a 35mm camera. Something isn't right. In any case you want to see footage of my 70mm adapter which is now finished, just send me your address and I will send you a DVD with 20 minutes of footage.. My adapter uses medium format lenses, not 35mm and my groundglass is twice the size of the 35mm.
wvargas@nyc.rr.com I was also at NAB and saw the redrock adapter on display at the JVC booth.




Boy, I know it's been a while since I've been here but since starting my own biz it's been 18 hour days. Listen, I have a question. At NAB I saw what I thought was the answer to my problems. At the JVC booth there was a Red Rock M2 display that had this converter that not only allowed me to use prime lenses but gave me great depth of field as well. When I talked to the RedRock people they told me that's the beauty of the Red Rock...great DOF. So I get one and put it on and NOTHING. I mean my primes fit but the depth of field is just like it always was...long and crystal clear. Has anyone else had this problem? I was promised that the M2 wuold give me film-like DOF but it doesn't. Anyone?

My adapter uses medium format lenses, not 35mm and my groundglass is twice the size of the 35mm.



Sound cool, can you post anything online? Doesn't a larger format have even less DOF than 35mm?

In any case you want to see footage of my 70mm adapter which is now finished, just send me your address and I will send you a DVD with 20 minutes of footage.. My adapter uses medium format lenses, not 35mm and my groundglass is twice the size of the 35mm.


Winston:

I ve got three medium format Kowa 6 Lenses. I have been toying with doing the same thing with them. How did the footage come out ?